John Calvin Commentary Hebrews 10

For the Law having a shadow, etc. He has borrowed this comparison from the art of painting. A shadow here has a different meaning than it does in Colossians 2:17, where he calls the ancient rites or ceremonies shadows because they did not possess the real substance of what they represented.

But he now says that they were like rough outlines, which foreshadow the perfect picture, for painters, before they apply the vivid colors with a brush, usually mark out the outlines of what they intend to represent.

This indistinct representation is called by the Greeks σκιαγραφία, which you might call in Latin “umbratilem,” meaning shadowy. The Greeks also had the εἰκὼν, the full likeness. Therefore, “eiconia” are also called images (imagines) in Latin, which vividly represent the form of men, animals, or places.

The difference then which the Apostle makes between the Law and the Gospel is this: that under the Law was outlined only in rough and imperfect lines what is under the Gospel portrayed in vivid colors and graphically distinct. He thus confirms again what he had previously said, that the Law was not useless, nor its ceremonies unprofitable. For though there was not in them the image of heavenly things, finished, as they say, with the artist's final touch, yet the representation, such as it was, was of considerable benefit to the fathers; but still our condition is much more favorable. We must however observe, that the things which were shown to them at a distance are the same as those which are now set before our eyes. Therefore, to both the same Christ is presented, the same righteousness, sanctification, and salvation; and the difference only is in the manner of painting or presenting them.

Of good things to come, etc. These, I think, are eternal things. I acknowledge that the kingdom of Christ, which is now present with us, was previously announced as future; but the Apostle’s words mean that we have a vivid image of future blessings. He then understands that spiritual pattern, the full fruition of which is deferred until the resurrection and the future world. At the same time, I confess again that these good things began to be revealed at the beginning of the kingdom of Christ; but his current point is this, that they are not only future blessings regarding the Old Testament, but also for us, who still hope for them.

Which they offered year by year, etc. He speaks especially of the yearly sacrifice, mentioned in Leviticus 16, though all the sacrifices are here included as one type. Now he reasons as follows: When there is no longer any consciousness of sin, there is then no need of sacrifice. But under the Law the offering of the same sacrifice was often repeated. Consequently, no satisfaction was given to God, nor was guilt removed, nor were consciences appeased. Otherwise, sacrificing would have ceased. We must further carefully observe that he calls those the same sacrifices which were appointed for a similar purpose, for they can be better understood by the design for which God instituted them than by the different beasts which were offered.

And this one point is more than sufficient to refute and expose the subtlety of the Papists, by which they think they ingeniously evade an absurdity in defending the sacrifice of the mass. For when it is objected to them that the repetition of the sacrifice is superfluous, since the efficacy of the sacrifice Christ offered is perpetual, they immediately reply that the sacrifice in the mass is not different but the same. This is their answer.

But what, on the contrary, does the Apostle say? He expressly denies that the sacrifice which is repeatedly offered, though it is the same, is efficacious or capable of making an atonement.

Now, though the Papists should cry out a thousand times that the sacrifice Christ once offered is the same as, and not different from, what they perform daily, I will still always contend, according to the express words of the Apostle, that since Christ’s offering succeeded in pacifying God, not only was an end put to former sacrifices, but it is also impious to repeat His sacrifice. Thus, it is quite evident that the offering of Christ in the mass is sacrilegious.

A remembrance again, etc. Though the Gospel is a message of reconciliation with God, it is still necessary that we should daily remember our sins; but what the Apostle means is, that sins were brought to remembrance so that guilt might be removed by means of the sacrifice then offered. It is not, then, any kind of remembrance that is meant here, but that which might lead to such a confession of guilt before God, as rendered a sacrifice necessary for its removal.

Such is the sacrifice of the mass with the Papists; for they pretend that by it the grace of God is applied to us in order that sins may be blotted out. But since the Apostle concludes that the sacrifices of the Law were weak, because they were repeated every year in order to obtain pardon, for the very same reason it may be concluded that the sacrifice of Christ was weak, if it must be daily offered, in order that its virtue may be applied to us. With whatever masks, then, they may cover their mass, they can never escape the charge of an atrocious blasphemy against Christ.

For it is not possible, etc. He confirms the former sentiment with the same reason which he had presented before, that the blood of beasts could not cleanse souls from sin. The Jews, indeed, had in this a symbol and a pledge of the real cleansing; but it was with reference to another, even as the blood of the calf represented the blood of Christ.

But the Apostle is speaking here of the efficacy of the blood of beasts in itself. He therefore justly takes away from it the power of cleansing. There is also to be understood a contrast which is not expressed, as if he had said, “It is no wonder that the ancient sacrifices were insufficient, so that they were to be offered continually, for they had nothing in them but the blood of beasts, which could not reach the conscience; but far otherwise is the power of Christ’s blood: It is not then right to measure the offering which he has made by the former sacrifices.”

Wherefore, when he comes, etc. This entering into the world was the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; for when he put on man’s nature that he might be a Redeemer to the world and appeared to men, he is said to have then come into the world, as elsewhere he is said to have descended from heaven (John 6:41).

And yet the fortieth Psalm, which he quotes, seems to be improperly applied to Christ, for what is found there by no means suits his character, such as, My iniquities have laid hold on me, unless we consider that Christ willingly took on himself the sins of his members.

The whole of what is said, no doubt, rightly accords with David. But as it is well known that David was a type of Christ, there is nothing unreasonable in transferring to Christ what David declared concerning himself, especially when mention is made of abolishing the ceremonies of the Law, as is the case in this passage.

However, not all consider that the words have this meaning, for they think that sacrifices are not expressly repudiated here, but that the superstitious notion which had generally prevailed—that the whole worship of God consisted in them—is what is condemned.

If this is so, it may be said that this testimony has little to do with the present question. It is therefore important for us to examine this passage more minutely, so that it may become clear whether the apostle has appropriately cited it.

Everywhere in the Prophets, sentences of this kind occur: that sacrifices do not please God, that they are not required by him, that he sets no value on them; indeed, on the contrary, that they are an abomination to him.

But in those instances, the blame did not lie with the sacrifices themselves, but with what was adventitious to them. For as hypocrites, while obstinate in their impiety, still sought to pacify God with sacrifices, it was in this manner they were reproved.

The Prophets, then, rejected sacrifices, not as they were instituted by God, but as they were corrupted by wicked men and profaned through unclean consciences.

But here the reason is different, for the psalmist is not condemning sacrifices offered in hypocrisy, or otherwise improperly performed through the depravity and wickedness of men. Instead, he denies that they are required of the faithful and sincere worshippers of God.

For David speaks of himself as one who offered them with a clean heart and pure hands, and yet he says that they did not please God.

If anyone were to object and say that sacrifices were not accepted on their own account or for their own worthiness, but for the sake of something else, I would still maintain that such an argument is unsuitable here.

For in that case, people would merely be called back to spiritual worship when they ascribe too much to external ceremonies, and the Holy Spirit would then be understood as declaring that ceremonies are of no account to God only when, through human error, they are too highly exalted.

David, being under the Law, surely ought not to have neglected the rite of sacrificing. I grant that he ought to have worshipped God with sincerity of heart; but it was not lawful for him to omit what God had commanded, and he had the command to sacrifice in common with all the rest of the people.

We therefore conclude that he looked further than his own age when he said, Sacrifice you would not. It was, indeed, in some respects true, even in David’s time, that God did not regard sacrifices; but as they were all still held under the yoke of the schoolmaster, David could not perform the worship of God in a complete manner, unless, so to speak, clothed in this form.

Therefore, we must necessarily come to the kingdom of Christ, so that the truth of God’s unwillingness to receive sacrifice may fully appear. There is a similar passage in Psalm 16:10: You will not suffer your holy one to see corruption. For though God delivered David for a time from corruption, yet this was not fully accomplished except in Christ.

It is highly significant that when he professes that he would do the will of God, he assigns no place to sacrifices. For from this we conclude that perfect obedience to God is possible without them, which could not be true unless the Law were annulled.

I do not, however, deny that David in this place, as well as in Psalm 51:16, so downplayed external sacrifices as to prefer to them what is most important; but there is no doubt that in both places he looked towards the kingdom of Christ.

And so the Apostle testifies that Christ is rightly introduced as the speaker in this Psalm, in which not even the lowest place among God’s commandments is allowed to sacrifices, which God had nevertheless strictly required under the Law.

But a body have you prepared me, etc. The words of David are different: An ear have you bored for me. Some think this phrase was borrowed from an ancient rite or custom of the Law (Exodus 21:6).

For if anyone set no value on the liberty granted at the jubilee and wished to be in perpetual servitude, his ear was bored with an awl. The meaning, as they think, was this: “You shall have me, O Lord, as a servant forever.”

I, however, take another view, regarding it as intimating docility and obedience; for we are deaf until God opens our ears, that is, until he corrects the stubbornness that cleaves to us.

There is at the same time an implied contrast between the undiscriminating common people (to whom the sacrifices were like phantoms without any power) and David, to whom God had revealed their spiritual and legitimate use and application.

But the Apostle followed the Greek translators when he said, A body have you prepared; for in quoting Scripture, the Apostles were not always so scrupulous about the exact wording, provided they did not pervert Scripture to their own purpose.

We must always consider the purpose for which they quote passages, for they are very careful about the main object, so as not to twist Scripture to another meaning. However, as for words and other details that do not affect the main point, they exercise great freedom.

In the volume or chapter of the book, etc. Volume is properly the meaning of the Hebrew word, for we know that books were formerly rolled up in the form of a cylinder. It is also not unreasonable to understand book as meaning the Law, which prescribes to all God’s children the rule of a holy life; though it seems to me a more suitable view to consider him as saying that he considered himself to be in the catalogue of those who are obedient to God.

The Law, indeed, commands us all to obey God; but David means that he was numbered among those who are called to obey God. Then he testifies that he obeyed his calling by adding, I come to do thy will; and this uniquely belongs to Christ. For though all the saints aspire to the righteousness of God, it is Christ alone who was fully competent to do God’s will.

This passage, however, should stimulate us all to promptly obey God; for Christ is a pattern of perfect obedience for this purpose: that all who are his may strive with one another in imitating him, that they may together respond to the call of God, and that their life may exemplify this saying, Lo, I come. To the same purpose is what follows, It is written, that is, that we should do the will of God, according to what is said elsewhere: that the end of our election is to be holy and unblamable in his sight (Colossians 1:22).